262 



August, 1909. 



American ^Ree JoarnaJi 



old. Editor Hurley tells about a lot of 

 bees he bought last spring which had 

 been left to their own sweet will in the 

 matter of superseding for many years, 

 and they did not suffer greatly in com- 

 parison with his home apiary in which 

 every colony had received last year a 

 young and vigorous queen from choice 

 stock. He says : 



"Certain it is, we would not ask for better 

 work from queens than we liave seen from 

 tliose under review. Tliere must, of course, 

 be old ones amont; tliem. and yet tiiey have 

 taken care of themselves for 20 years. Is it 

 not possible that we often attribute to the 

 queens faults that are the results of other 

 causes?" 



Is it not possible, also, that locality 

 or the strain of bees makes it so that 

 one man will get better results by leav- 

 ing the matter of superseding entirely 

 to the bees, while for another it may be 

 more profitable to renew all queens 

 beyond a certain age? 



Is the Queen a Queen? 



The editor of the Irisli Bee Journal 

 enters a protest against accepting C. 

 P. Dadant's assertion in the American 

 Bee Journal that "tlie term "queen' is 

 a misnomer, for the queen is anything 

 but the ruler of the hive." Editor 

 Digges argues that some of the greatest 

 and best queens never ruled in the 

 sense implied by Mr. Dadant, and con- 

 cludes, "The mother bee, distinguished 

 and pre-eminent above all others in the 

 hive, is rightly termed a queen." 



The point of dift'erence is as to the 

 meaning of the word " queen." Per- 

 haps it ought to be conceded that Edi- 

 tor Digges, having lived under a queen 

 ought to be able to give points to Mr. 

 Dadant who has been living under con- 

 stantly changing rulers of the male 

 persuasion. As to the actual facts in 

 the case, however, there probablv is no 

 difference of opinion. Mr. Dadant 

 likely does not yield to Editor Digges 

 in his appreciation of the distinguished 

 pre-eminence of the mother bee, and 

 the latter does not hold that the queen 

 in anv sense rules. 



Disinfection or No Disinfection of 

 Foul-Broody Hives 



The question as to whether a hive 

 that has been occupied by a colonv 

 afflicted with foul brood may be safely 

 used again without first having been 

 disinfected is one upon which opinions 

 differ. Perhaps there lias nowhere 

 been given a more able summing up of 

 the views on both sides than is to be 

 found in the Canadian Bee Journal for 

 July, although it is frankly intended by 

 Editor Hurley to show that there is no 

 need of disinfection. He takes as his 

 text a paragraph from the British Bee 

 Journal written by the well known 

 Scotch authority, D. M. Macdonald, 

 who quoted Dr. White, expert in bac- 

 teriology at Washington, Editor Root, 

 and Editor Cowan as insisting that dis- 

 infection was necessary. 



Editor Hurley admits that such an 

 array of authority is formidable, but 

 pluckily stands his ground and says he 

 is not convinced. Dr. White says: 



"Use no bee-supplies from an infected 

 apiary unless they are thoroughly disin- 

 fected .... It is always safer to allow 

 the bees to go into a new hive or a hive 

 which has been thoroughly disinfected." 



Editor Hurley adroitly meets this by 

 quoting Dr. White himself at the De- 

 troit convention, who in answer to a 

 question replied : 



" As far as I know, there has been no work 

 done upon this line. The paper read tliat it 

 would be safer to disinfect the hives, hii^ 

 ^i'hethi'r it is iiet't'ssarv or m't wc do not k/nno. If 

 there were honey or bur-combs containing 

 honey left in the hive, it would be almost 

 necessary to remove them." 



Plainly that makes Dr. White's posi- 

 tion : "I advise that in all cases the 

 hive be disinfected, but / do not kiioic 

 that it is absohttely necessary." 



As to Editor Root's position there is 

 the following paragraph : 



"It is true that Mr. E. R, Root expresses 

 an emphatic opinion that 'foul brood can be 

 (and has been) communicated by tlie old hive 

 alone.' but I doubt very much the absolute 

 certaint>" of it. With so very many oppor- 

 tunities for the bees reaching infected 

 honey, and the possibility of their taking 

 some of it with them from the starters, I 

 cannot understand how one cansay /'(i.t/Z/t't'/v 

 that it came from the non-disinfected hives. 

 But Mr. Root says further: 'While, «o times 

 out of 100, merely shaking on to foundation 

 is perhaps sufficient, yet if there is one case 

 in a hundred where disease is transmitted 

 through the hive land we have ample proof 

 that there isi. nit hives should be disin- 

 fected.' My comment on this is that the 

 exception should prove the rule— especially 

 when the cause of that exception is not ab- 

 soluteh' known." 



The wonder is that Editor Hurley 

 missed his chance to add this; "When 

 Mr. Root says that if there is one case 

 in a hundred where disease is trans- 

 mitted through the hive all hives 

 should be disinfected, he could hardly 

 have been putting himself in the place 

 of the man who really confronted the 

 task of disinfecting UMl hives. Such a 

 one would be likely to say, "Well, if 

 there's one colony in the hundred that 

 will get the disease again, it will be 

 easier for me to treat that one colony 

 again than to disinfect the whole of the 

 100 hives, so I'll take my chances and 

 omit the disinfection." 



Summed up, the gist of Mr. Hurley's 

 further argument is somewhat to this 

 eft'ect : Thousands of times old hives 

 have been used without disinfection, 

 and the cure has been complete ; if 

 there has been any case of the disease 

 again appearing in a hive not disin- 

 fected there is a possibility that the 

 infection came in some other way 

 than from tlie non-disinfected hive; 

 the inspectors, men who have grappled 

 with the disease at close quarters for 

 years, say there is no need to disinfect 

 hives ; and all this warrants the belief 

 that the danger of infection from the 

 hive is a negligible quantity. 



Spacing of Brood-Frames 



In this country it is the very general 

 practise to space brood-frames ly^ 

 inches from center to center. Yet there 

 are some who prefer 1 1-12 inches, and 

 they say that when bees build at their 

 own sweet will in bo.x-hives the larger 

 spacing will be found to prevail. But 

 do bees always know what is best for 

 them.'' 



John Silver, in the British Bee Jour- 

 nal, says : 



"To enable the warmth of a cluster of 

 bees to go as far as possible in the spring, 

 the frames should be spaced at i 3-10 instead 

 of I 0-20. The same number of bees that 

 cover 5 frames spaced i g-20, can cover 

 frames at i 3-10." 



According to that, it would seem 

 that 1 3-8 is too wide spacing by 3-4(t 

 of an inch. Certainly, if we can have 

 a larger quantity of brood properly 

 cared for by closer spacing, that is 

 something to be desired. And may 

 there not be a still larger gain by spac- 

 ing still closer? If brood-combs be 

 7-8 in thickness, and spaced 1 3-8, that 

 leaves a passage-way of 1-2 inch be- 

 tween 2 combs. Now why not make 

 that passage-way only 1-4 inch, and 

 thus have the same number of bees 

 take care of double the number of 

 brood-combs? 



At once some one will object that 

 with such close spacing there will not 

 be enough bees in the passage-way to 

 keep up sufficient heat on a cold spring 

 day. Surely there is a limit to close 

 spacing. Is Mr. Silver sure he has not 

 passed the limit with his 1 3-10 spacing? 

 Are we sure that 1 3-8 does not sur- 

 pass the limit? Do we know anything 

 for sure about the matter, anyway? 



Editor Hurley and Editor Root 



A signed editorial upon the subject 

 of disinfecting foul-broody hives ap- 

 pears in the Canadian Bee Journal, 

 page 207, in the course of which Editor 

 Hurley says : 



" But Mr. Root adds one more sentence to 

 the above, which, in m\' opinion, has special 

 signiticance. It is this: ' Aid we ir« gUd to note 

 that our Government officials stood out 

 SQuare and clear on this proposition.' Why 

 glad?" 



No further explanation is given as to 

 what is the "special significance" of 

 Mr. Root's remark, and the "Why 

 glad.'" is left unanswered. But Mr. 

 Hurley, maintaining his ground, closes 

 the article by saying : 



"I am not an authority, and where doctors 

 disagree I shall not attempt to decide. Pos- 

 sibly, however, my not being in the supply 

 business may have something to do with it." 



It will not be strange if the reader of 

 that article, putting together the two 

 passages quoted, and supplying what 

 seems to be meant by innuendo, inter- 

 prets Mr. Hurley somewhat after the 

 following manner : "I am not in the 

 supply business, and so I am inclined 

 to use old hives; Mr. Root is in the 

 supply business, and so favors the con- 

 demnation of the old hives that the 

 new ones may be sold. He is glad that 

 Government officials agree with him, 

 for that helps the supply business." 



Brantford, Canada, is a long ways 

 from Medina, Ohio, and the likelihood 

 is that Mr. Hurley is not intimately ac- 

 quainted with the man E. R. Root. If 

 he were, he would not for a moment 

 thus judge him. Is it not possible that 

 Mr. Root may be entirely sincere in the 

 belief that it is a dangerous thing to 

 use the hives in question? Editor 

 Cowan is not interested in the supply 

 business, and he holds with Editor 

 Root. The same may be said of Dr. 

 White and Mr. Macdonald. If three 

 good men and true like these hold a 

 certain belief, is it not possible that 

 Mr. Root might hold the same belief 

 even if he be in the supply business? 

 And having that belief would he be 

 honest, holding the position he does, 

 not to insist vigorously that no risk 

 should be run, even if some one with- 

 out sufficient charitv should crv out 



